There’s probably no God…

_{William Dembski

January 8, 2009

Atheism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This just in from RichardDawkins.net:

Today, thanks to many Cif readers, the overall total raised for the Atheist Bus Campaign stands at a truly overwhelming £135,000, breaking our original target of £5,500 by over 2400%. Given this unexpected amount, I’m very excited to tell you that 800 buses – instead of the 30 we were initially aiming for – are now rolling out across the UK with the slogan, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”, in locations all over England, Scotland and Wales, including Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, York, Cardiff, Devon, Leeds, Bristol and Aberdeen.

There probably is no God

Three questions:

(1) What exactly is the probability that there is no God?

(2) In times past the state was concerned that people believe in God because they saw faith as curbing human wickedness (God holds us accountable for our actions and will see that in the end justice is served–so watch what you do). Wouldn’t it therefore be more honest for the atheists to put up the slogan: “There probably is no God. Now watch your back because no one else is.”

(3) Is it a coincidence that the world’s leading atheist is also a pathological Darwinist?

Comments

StephenB @ 110
Sartre and Camut were not miserable because of their disposition. They brooded because they were intelligent enough to know the difference between subjective and objective value. A man can give a woman a piece of glass and tell her that it is a diamond. For a while, she will place subjective value on the crystal and that will be enough. Sooner or later, though, she will come to realize that is has no objective value and she will resent it.
Can there be any value without a 'valuer'? Isn't it more that value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder? We value platinum or diamonds because of their relative scarcity whereas lead or quartz crystal are worth less to us because they are more commonplace. But, if we were not here, could any of it be said to have any value. In a sense, it is all relative. For example, I remember in one of C M Kornbluth's science-fiction novels rings made of oak were worn as a sign of wealth because, in the future setting of the story, wood had become so scarce it was worth more than gold. Does anyone doubt that is quite possible? In the case of your little parable the woman might still value the piece of glass if she believed it was give as a token of genuine love for that reason. However, if she discovered that not only was it a relatively worthless piece of glass but it was given in a cynical attempt to buy her favors then she would certainly resent being lied to by the donor on both counts.
Atheists, none of whom believe in objective truth may, nevertheless, place a subjective value on life. So much so, that they are likely to obsess over temporary things like pleasure, power, and fame. Indeed, they will almost always make little gods out of those things. Disbelieving in all objective value, they will focus on the subjective and make the best of the present moment.
Solipsism may be an intriguing philosphical standpoint but I doubt that there are any, on either side, who do not believe that there is an objective reality out there. But you are right in that most atheists believe that, if this life is all there is and all we can expect, then it makes sense to make the best of what we have. And making the best of what we have does not necessarily mean indulging in a lifelong orgy of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll, although I don't doubt that there a few who think that's an attractive prospect. There are also many who would take pleasure in composing, playing or just listening to music or reading and writing poetry or playing sports or travelling the world to experience its diversity or fashioning things with their hands or watching endless re-runs of Star Trek. These are all morally unobjectionable pursuits which, of course, being lucky enough to live in a relatively affluent and free Western society we have the opportunity to indulge in. We do not have to spend every waking minute just struggling to survive or being told what we can think, say, eat or do by political or religious masters.
The truly intelligent atheist, however, is miserable because he refuses to delude himself about the implications of his belief system. He understands that everything he cares about will either die, get lost, or be forgotten. Even if he does somehow leave to his children something that “appears” to be valuable, he realizes that it (and they) will return to dust. It will be as if they had never lived at all. Nothing will have any lasting value including any sense of purpose that he may try to create for himself. If life has no meaning, then there is no way to change that fact by pretending to invent one. To try is to play a fools game.
Agnostics or atheists, of course, would argue that is just what religion tries to do. It emerged, in part, precisely because it offered an comforting alternative to the terrifying prospect of a hopeless and Godless universe. It is plainly much more appealing but that doesn't necessarily make it true. And, yes, the atheist view is bleak but, if that is really the truth, isn't it better to face it rather than pretend it doesn't exist?
Sarte and Camut were intelligent enough to understand that. That is why they were miserable and that is why Camut pointed out that the debate over suicide is the only philosophical question.
If this life is all we have, if something is better than nothing, then to throw it away before we have to makes no sense. Of course, if a life has become intolerable for some reason then ending it may be preferable to that individual. Otherwise, suicide is silly, Camus notwithstanding.Seversky_{January 17, 2009
January
01
Jan
17
17
2009
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

Gil Dodgen @ 105
Please accept my apologies for not making my point clear. I was not referring to your vitriol, but that to which I have been subjected over the last several years on the Internet as a result of being an ID apologist and making my name public. I’ve been called every name in the book, the most common being IDiot.
No problem, I guessed that what was what you meant. Both sides are prone to jeering at the opposition. It's par for the course in a team sport like ID v Darwinism.Seversky_{January 17, 2009
January
01
Jan
17
17
2009
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT}

Stephen:
Gil, I have come to believe that atheism is not an intellectual position at all. It is more like a cry of wrath.
This is precisely correct. I play keyboards with the worship team at our church. Before each service the worship team congregates and prays. During one such congregation I told a very wise man about my former antipathy to Christianity. He said, "You didn't just dislike Christianity, you wanted to hunt it down and kill it." This rang so true, and I must admit that to this day I have guilt feelings about trying to hunt down and kill that to which I ultimately owe everything. My consolation is Romans 8:28.GilDodgen_{January 13, 2009
January
01
Jan
13
13
2009
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

tribune7 -- if you had no intention of addressing my questions, why did you bother posting? My post was about the difference, if any, between theists and atheists, not the substance of their philosophical differences. I raised it because so much of the posting on this thread presumes that they are very different.pubdef_{January 13, 2009
January
01
Jan
13
13
2009
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

There probably is a God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life. :) For real enjoyment, not momentary and course enjoyment, comes from communion and relationship with God. Like CS Lewis said, "We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered to us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”Clive Hayden_{January 13, 2009
January
01
Jan
13
13
2009
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

"Pubdef--So, my questions for you all: if I’m right, what are the implications for this whole discussion; and if I’m wrong, is there any data that shows it?" As far as I can tell your position is that there is "probably" no God and methinks that is pretty weasely.tribune7_{January 13, 2009
January
01
Jan
13
13
2009
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Jerry, I agree again. Existentialists have said some truly profound things, and sometimes that "in your face" attitude about the power of will can create much good in its own context. As is usually the case, a bad philosophy often consists of taking a good thing and running to far with it. We shouldn't lose track of that good thing, which is the power of the will. In fact, our current culture is flawed to the extent that it denies the power of self-control and will power, reducing all moral problems to medical problems. We could use a little bit more of that element of the existential spirit, if you get my drift.StephenB_{January 13, 2009
January
01
Jan
13
13
2009
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

StephenB, A great post but I want to add something that I find of value from Sartre. One of the things that I found useful was that we are essentially defined but what we choose. We have choices all the time and even the prisoner chained to the wall in a dungeon can make choices (how he reacts to his guards and his situation for example) and those choice will define him. So this philosophy which is not necessarily atheistic is something I found valuable.jerry_{January 13, 2009
January
01
Jan
13
13
2009
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

I can't support this with research of any sort, but I think it's probably true: regarding daily life and behavior, and overall "happiness," there is no significant difference between theists and atheists. So, my questions for you all: if I'm right, what are the implications for this whole discussion; and if I'm wrong, is there any data that shows it?pubdef_{January 13, 2009
January
01
Jan
13
13
2009
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Did most atheists go to aetheist schools or to schools slack on some truth that "Atheist" said everything is a lie?Lost his thinking.Dr. Time_{January 13, 2009
January
01
Jan
13
13
2009
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

----Laminar: Just choosing to believe won’t make God pop into existence if it doesn’t already exist." I agree. One of mankinds silliest statments came from Voltaire who said, "If God didn't exist, mankind would have had to invent him." So, I am with you on that one. The good news is, though, that both science and philosophy testify to the existence of a Creator. Also, it appears that this same creator left clues about his existence and his wisdom. Apparently, he wanted to be found and acknowledged as creator.StephenB_{January 13, 2009
January
01
Jan
13
13
2009
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

-----Earvin: "The point was that it seems possible to me for an atheist to act altruistically (i.e., without concern for one’s own reward)while your entire thesis seems to be that you are “good” out of a deliberate effort to overcome your own intrinsic evilness, and thus please God. That’s the antithesis of altruism." Earvin, I can only reiterate that I have not taken up that topic. I will, however, offer a brief observation. An atheist can certainly love his children, even though he doesn't acknowledge any such an immaterial reality as love exists. That is just one of his many contradictions. To be sure, he can also act unselfishly, but that is because he is a different kind of creature than he thinks he is. A mere collection of clanging molecules can't love; only a non-material soul can do that. Equally important, the atheist cannot provide any rational justification for his altruistic behavior, nor can he hope that, in the end, it will make any difference. If he thinks it through, he can't be happy about that.StephenB_{January 13, 2009
January
01
Jan
13
13
2009
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

StephenB said,
Why else would atheists discount the scienfitic evidence for design and seek out extravagant explanations such as “infinite multiple universes.” For that matter, why else would they discount reason’s first principles and assume that something can come from nothing?
Isn't it possible (and perhaps even advisable)to accept the evidence for design while leaving theism out of it? Don't theists believe that something can come from nothing?Earvin Johnson_{January 13, 2009
January
01
Jan
13
13
2009
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

StephenB Believing in God just doesn't solve the problem of meaning for me. How do I know I am not just an accident in an intelligently designed universe? The fact that a universe with no teleological origin can have no meaning is also not a reason to start believing in God. Just choosing to believe won't make God pop into existence if it doesn't already exist.Laminar_{January 13, 2009
January
01
Jan
13
13
2009
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

Gill, I have come to believe that atheism is not an intellectual position at all. It is more like a cry of wrath. Why else would atheists discount the scienfitic evidence for design and seek out extravagant explanations such as "infinite multiple universes." For that matter, why else would they discount reason's first principles and assume that something can come from nothing?StephenB_{January 13, 2009
January
01
Jan
13
13
2009
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Stephen, The point was that it seems possible to me for an atheist to act altruistically (i.e., without concern for one's own reward)while your entire thesis seems to be that you are "good" out of a deliberate effort to overcome your own intrinsic evilness, and thus please God. That's the antithesis of altruism.Earvin Johnson_{January 13, 2009
January
01
Jan
13
13
2009
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

-----Earvin: “Why would one assume that an atheist (and I’m not one myself) could take no pleasure in the day-to-day events of life, while still believing in the finality of death?” You seem to have missed the point. The argument is that mediocre atheists substitute pleasure for happiness out of a reaction to meaninglessness, and that intelligent atheists refuse to play that game. -----“It seems that Stephen (and others here) are denying the existence of altruism, because their motivation for being “good” is, by definition, selfish. If you believe that God created the evil you claim to be restraining yourself from, doesn’t the fault lie with the manufacturer?” Please read these comments more carefully. I said nothing at all about altruism, nor did anyone else. You are mixing themes and reading your own convinctions into what others are writing.StephenB_{January 13, 2009
January
01
Jan
13
13
2009
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Tribune 7, Gil, crandaddy, thanks for the kind words.StephenB_{January 13, 2009
January
01
Jan
13
13
2009
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

GilDodgen said:
...the evidence of modern science is that the universe and life were designed from the beginning with great intelligence and forethought for an ultimate purpose that transcends space and time.
I agree that there is abundant evidence and justification for the Design Inference, but how may we know about the "ultimate purpose" without invoking religious arguments? Don't we want to steer clear of that sort of thing, and stick to the science?Earvin Johnson_{January 13, 2009
January
01
Jan
13
13
2009
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

1- the value of a diamond is subjective and materialistic in nature 2- What is "objective truth"?Joseph_{January 13, 2009
January
01
Jan
13
13
2009
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

StephenB has the strawmen animated and dancing. Why would one assume that an atheist (and I'm not one myself) could take no pleasure in the day-to-day events of life, while still believing in the finality of death? It seems that Stephen (and others here) are denying the existence of altruism, because their motivation for being "good" is, by definition, selfish. If you believe that God created the evil you claim to be restraining yourself from, doesn't the fault lie with the manufacturer?Earvin Johnson_{January 13, 2009
January
01
Jan
13
13
2009
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Okay, I'll jump on the pile too... 110 is an outstanding post, Stephen. My understanding of Existentialism is that it was largely a reaction against the existential horrors of Nihilism that you point out so well. But of course, subjective arbitrary attribution of value to one's own existence is no substitute for the real thing. It is enough to put one into the throes of depression.crandaddy_{January 12, 2009
January
01
Jan
12
12
2009
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
The truly intelligent atheist, however, is miserable because he refuses to delude himself about the implications of his belief system. He understands that everything he cares about will either die, get lost, or be forgotten. Even if he does somehow leave to his children something that “appears” to be valuable, he realizes that it (and they) will return to dust. It will be as if they had never lived at all. Nothing will have any lasting value including any sense of purpose that he may try to create for himself. If life has no meaning, then there is no way to change that fact by pretending to invent one. To try is to play a fools game.
Stephen, I would love to meet you one day. This is one of the most eloquent and concise expositions of the underlying impetus for my journey from militant atheism to Christianity. It is a simple logical deduction, which haunted me from the time I was a child. The intellectual atheist crowd with which I was associated in my early years, when I confronted them with such challenges, would always reply with something like, "You'll live on in the memories of your loved ones." Nonsense, I thought. Who remembers his great, great grandfather or great, great grandmother? How do they live on in my memory? But the clincher was knowing that one day the sun will become a red giant. Its corona will surpass the orbit of the earth. The seas will boil away, the atmosphere will be stripped away and blown into deep space, and the earth will become molten on its surface. Then it will freeze and become lifeless forever in a universe decaying into heat death. There will be no record of anything that anyone has ever done or thought, and no one to interpret or appreciate those nonexistent records. The accomplishments of Newton and Beethoven will be lost forever. Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa will have the same destiny -- eternal, meaningless oblivion. If the evidence were that this is the actual state of things, then so be it. However, the evidence of modern science is that the universe and life were designed from the beginning with great intelligence and forethought for an ultimate purpose that transcends space and time.GilDodgen_{January 12, 2009
January
01
Jan
12
12
2009
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

StephenB --great post.tribune7_{January 12, 2009
January
01
Jan
12
12
2009
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

tribune7 Thank you for your advice.Apologies for not knowing.Understand better now.I would read you as a loyal friend after what we have gone through so far,thank you fever so much.Dr. Time_{January 12, 2009
January
01
Jan
12
12
2009
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

----seversky: "From the little I know of them, the French existentialists like Sartre and Camus were a depressing bunch. I think they missed the point, though. The fact that we only have a short time to enjoy the pleasant things that this world has to offer doesn’t make them any the less pleasurable. If anything, it should prompt us to value them even more highly because our access to them is apparently so limited. Isn’t it significant that so many people who survive a very close brush with death attest that they now relish every additional day of life that is allowed to them?" Sartre and Camut were not miserable because of their disposition. They brooded because they were intelligent enough to know the difference between subjective and objective value. A man can give a woman a piece of glass and tell her that it is a diamond. For a while, she will place subjective value on the crystal and that will be enough. Sooner or later, though, she will come to realize that is has no objective value and she will resent it. Atheists, none of whom believe in objective truth may, nevertheless, place a subjective value on life. So much so, that they are likely to obsess over temporary things like pleasure, power, and fame. Indeed, they will almost always make little gods out of those things. Disbelieving in all objective value, they will focus on the subjective and make the best of the present moment. The truly intelligent atheist, however, is miserable because he refuses to delude himself about the implications of his belief system. He understands that everything he cares about will either die, get lost, or be forgotten. Even if he does somehow leave to his children something that “appears” to be valuable, he realizes that it (and they) will return to dust. It will be as if they had never lived at all. Nothing will have any lasting value including any sense of purpose that he may try to create for himself. If life has no meaning, then there is no way to change that fact by pretending to invent one. To try is to play a fools game. Sarte and Camut were intelligent enough to understand that. That is why they were miserable and that is why Camut pointed out that the debate over suicide is the only philosophical question. All atheists who are intelligent and honest with themselves are also unhappy. All others are whistling past the graveyard.StephenB_{January 12, 2009
January
01
Jan
12
12
2009
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

Dr. Time Every few sentences hit the enter key and your posts will be more readable. Also, avoid using all caps. And speaking for myself, I don't like to argue for the sake of argument.tribune7_{January 11, 2009
January
01
Jan
11
11
2009
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

P.S.--Was the finale chance or necessity?Sal Gal_{January 11, 2009
January
01
Jan
11
11
2009
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

crandaddy:
The fact of the matter is that if you convince people that they’ll burn in hell for eternity if they don’t act right, they’ll fall in line with whatever social order is required. Such a doctrine may be theoretically amiss, or its proselytization may be illicitly wrought. Nevertheless, it effects desired consequences.
No argument from me on this. But it deserves consideration that there are Buddhist societies in which people strive to follow the Eightfold Noble Way because they hope to escape the cycle of death and rebirth. I have seen Nirvana described as an ember burning out.
Now I’m not a consequentialist, but I can consider two consequences and determine that one would be more favorable than the other.
Darling you gotta let me know... ;)Sal Gal_{January 11, 2009
January
01
Jan
11
11
2009
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

GilDodgen:I hope you and no one else here at this site reading me take too personally what I say.I just see things differently than many and giving my view in apoetic fashion.I love debating just for the brain exercise as well as to find out if I am in this world or another travelling in time.The only way I know that I am back home here is usually when someone lets me know that I am talking in a language they don`t understand. I hope you and all others lets me know.I am rude sometimes not knowingly so.Please tell me when also.You do have one positive that is easy to detect.You are FAMOUS with alot of loyal followers coming here to see why you are so famous.YOU`ll soon be a HOLLYWOOD celebrity if your fan base keeps growing.Even negatives turn out to be positives when time allows it to. Mathematics prooves this as truth> -5x-3=15 It is positive truth.Wish you the best.You are not out of order with this site or you wouldn`t be allowed to post,would you? Don`t most writers wish to be famous?You must be giving them their $.02 worth.They keep coming back for more.Looks like there is alot of them out there who don`t dare to debate you.Maybe they are afraid that they might lose debating.That would make you the winner and you might not even know it.I`m only a nubee here on the site.I`m usually the one calling myself the crazy,stupid idiot sometimes.I was kind of hoping others would believe that I am sometimes and tell me so.Atleast I would know that I am alive and only a below normal human.Just have fun.Dr. Time_{January 11, 2009
January
01
Jan
11
11
2009
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply